A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
B. If a vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of another vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
Notes of Decisions
Alhambra Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 796 P.2d 470 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “[6] A.R.S. § 28-792 provides that the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk.”
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel, 486 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2021).
“The State countered that the limitation 1 The enumerated statutes in 2017 set forth at subsection (A) consisted of: (1) § 28-645(A)(3)(a), obeying a red light; (2) § 28-729, proper travel within a lane; (3) § 28-771, yielding at an intersection; (4) § 28-772, yielding while…”
Romero v. Stines, 503 P.2d 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 5× “Did the failure of the trial court to give a requested jury instruction, embracing the text of A.R.S. § 28-792, subsec. B, deny the plaintiff a fair trial and influence the size of the jury verdict? 2.”
Brooks v. De La Cruz, 473 P.2d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
“' § 28-792. It has been said that “[a] right of way, like a burden of proof, will establish precedence when rights might otherwise be balanced.”
State v. Teran, 510 P.3d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 5× “Abuse of Discretion ¶14 Teran next argues the superior court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury under A.R.S. §§ 28-792 and -793, which are traffic code statutes describing the respective duties and rights of pedestrians and drivers when pedestrians cross roadways…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-792(A) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.